Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

West

I understand it was practiced a little in the West +100 years ago. Cure diseases such as les'banism, and maybe self-abuse.Civic Cat (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO report.

Our ref dismisses the WHO report on male circumcision saying:

• (It was) based on studies that have long been questioned, and never proven beyond the correlation of the two incidents.

The WHO report seems to refer to some five studies in making its case and it's not clear what "two incidents" are being referred to.

While I personally find the idea cutting of bits of people to be pretty weird, that doesn't mean that studies which suggest that there may be a connection between male circumcision and the reduction of aids transmission are wrong. If the studies are faulty then we need to be somewhat more clear on what's wrong with them.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. no, seriously, the studies on HIV transmission are correlation studies ONLY. They do not address the fact that AIDS in africa is not tested for, but is assumed in many many people based on symptoms. They do not address the behaviors of the men involved, nor do they address the differences in culture between men who are circumcised (most are "christian" or muslim, and have different sexual behaviors) and non circumcised men in Africa. The studies in the US and UK looking at gay men and circumcision have NONE OF THE SAME correlations. Yet WHO documents continue to use the existing studies in africa as a premise for their views. One scholar who is quoted here, states that in his opinion, the WHO is looking for "justifications" for allowing circumcision in men, since it's overwhelmingly popular in the US, and in muslim countries - to be voting blocks in the UN. None of this is in here, cause it's on male circumcision, and cause I just started improving this article yesterday, and it's going to take lots of work to read the documents I've got in front of me - but that said, the evidence is pretty shoddy that there is any real connection between circumcision and AIDS. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Without replying point by point, what are the "two incidents"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it some more, they quote these trials, a couple of which were in the Lancet:

• iiGlobal HIV Prevention Working Group New approaches to HIV prevention: Accelerating research and ensuring future access. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation & Henry. J. Kaiser Family Foundation 2006.
• iiiWeiss HA, Quigley M, Hayes R. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2000;14:2361-70.
• ivBailey C, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369: 643-56.
• v Gray H, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-66.
• vi Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2005;2(11):e298.

They also refer to "randomised controlled trails" which rather suggests they were not looking at simple correlations.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, i know the trials. I also know the critics to the trials. Again, US and UK studies do not show the same correlations. And how are you going to have a *moral* *ethical* "random trial". are you going to circumcise 10 men, and not circumcise 10 others, and have them all have the same type of het sex with HIV positive women? the idea they were "random control trails" is bs, unless they are unethical. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The other aspect often challenged by critics of these studies and the "advice" to circumcise adult african men is this: why can you not posit a medical reason the forskin would cause more infection in men. It does not cause wounds, for the hiv virus to get into (remember, most transmission of men is anal, not from the penis...), so what "medically" is going on. again, no answer from teh pro-circumcise group. It is one of those very political discussions that doesn't seem to come from actual medical studies. Again, if read about vaginal to penile transmission in the "western" world, you have to ask what else is happening in africa. I'll tell you what else is happening, but it has nothing to do with normal sex. It has to do with the culture around sexuality, the culture of rape, and the culture of violence. But hey, let's just circumcise the men. that will clearly fix everything. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not attack strawmen, Godot. The report quite clearly said, and I quote

“”2.1 Male circumcision should never replace other known methods of HIV prevention and should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes: promoting delay in the onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex and reduction in the number of sexual partners; providing and promoting correct and consistent use of male and female condoms; providing HIV testing and counselling services; and providing services for the treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

.

It's not advocating "circumcize the men and everything will be fine", but rather "this will help decrease transmission rates, so we should add it to the list of things we can use to combat AIDS". I'm frankly amazed that male circumcision is apparently such a huge moral panic all of a sudden, when there really are better things to be going on and on about that are actually a threat, like, for instance, AIDS or FGM. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not read the reports in The Lancet but it is a peer reviewed scientific journal. One imagines that if there were systematic errors in the studies then they should have been picked up by the journal itself or identified by the peer review process. After all, that is what the peer review process is for.

I wouldn't doubt that the articles have been criticized. I would imagine that every significant article ever published by The Lancet has been criticised by somebody. The question is who criticised them and is the journal thinking of retracting the studies.

The Lancet is the pre-eminent medical journal and the WHO is the world body charged with disseminating medical advice. Furthermore New Scientist has printed a number of reports along the same lines.

Again I'm no fan of circumcision just for the sake of it and I would not want to suffer it myself, but if we are going to reject what looks like a scientific consensus then we need some pretty hefty scientific fire-power to shoot down "The Lancet" the WHO and "New Scientist".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Consented FGM

What if a woman wills to do it? No pressure (especially not religious), she's already over 18, knows the possible consequences, etc. ZILtoid1991 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

France "catches up"...

Here's the thing, and I think the phrase after it sums up nicely most of my views on rules. Why is it necessary to specifically outlaw genital mutilation when you have laws against child abuse? Surely cutting up children is abuse, right? It's like bringing in terrorism laws, it seems to imply that it was illegal before hand! We learn from and legislate against too many too specific examples. ^{...I'll swim your plastic!} 15:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's like bringing in a law to explicitly say that you can't assault people in the street and cut their hands off.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the genius of Louisiana lawmakers, I cannot shoot at the police with laser cannons. I especially cannot throw snakes from a third story building. Ty^talk 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Surely cutting up children is abuse, right? - Ah, therein lies the rub. As far as I am concerned this statement is fine but are we really going to say that all those circumcised boys have been abused? Cue flame war. From time to time there is a need to specifically move some actions from the acceptable to unacceptable - think of corporal punishment as another example. So yes, in a perfect world, etc, etc, but, here in the real world, we do need to be occasionally very specific. Bad Faith (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the real world actually doesn't care about how we categorise things. It throws us things all the time that we're not precisely prepared for, and we get confused so add it to the list of things we don't want to happen. Until the next thing comes around again. What you're describing is actually the effect of this process, not the reason behind it. ^{...I'll watch your arc welder!} 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jumping in late (cause I'm actually working, shocker - that's why this article is coming piece mail) there are some differences. 1) is the penalty of one crime different from the penalty of another crime. 2) Is there an attempt to discourage a social aspect of the behavior. (Ie., we all know abuse is wrong, but what *is* abuse? I think ironically, France's particular law has more to do with hatred/distrust/bias against the Magreb, than anything that actually is there to protect little girls or boys. Their view on male circumcision (which is, by the way, where I see some of the strongest arguments against the UN position on hiv/aids) is that it, too, is abuse. But they aren't politically motivated enough to be running down a bunch of jews. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Labial/VCH piercings

Anyone want to go down that path? Or is it okay if you do it to yourself voluntarily? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't seriously want to compare...no, there's no way you do. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, what seems to be missing from the FGM article is some semblance of input from the individual experiencing the act. I think there's a tacet understanding, as with most male circumcisions, that it is perpetrated onto the individual when they are too young object--but that understanding appears to be missing from this article. Do people voluntarily participate in FGM upon themselves? Otherwise, there's very little in the article to differentiate those kinds of piercings from a form of FGM that would be considered "awful" or "illegal" (as described in the article). The mention of the fibula in the article struck me as strange, because it appears to be exactly the same as a labial piercing, only involuntary because it was done at infancy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Piercings do not take out parts of the body, any more than male piercings do. I'm sure there are some body mod procedures that do, but they are extremely rare. virtually no adult women get this done, any more than adult men get circumcised. there are ritualized procedures (including tattooing, pricking, or nicking) that both men and women do when they are adults converting into various religions. (Judaism, for example, requires adult males to prick their thumbs, not cut off their willies). And again, what you do to yourself is body mod, not mutilation. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Do people voluntarily participate in FGM upon themselves?" Have you readLynn Thomas's classic article on just that question? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. The poem (?) just from the link you gave is shocking. the article I'm sure will be eye opening.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have JSTOR, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love that if you wouldn't mind. I've lost my university access, so I have to go in on weekends.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation

I'm going to remove the whiny statement about how circumcision is supposedly genital mutilation. It sounds like the dredges of the arguments the MRAs left behind, and it has no place in the article because "mutilation" implies destroying or removing a vital part of something. Circumcision, unless done wrong, does not match that definition, and removing a bit of unnecessary skin hardly justifies a moral panic. Any objections?Rational guy (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there any specifically that you are talking about? Certainly, circumcision is genital mutilation, although on the scale of things it is less traumatic than the female version. Tielec01 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he's referring specifically to this section. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with this? I don't see any problem with pointing out the stupidity of circumcision? It doesn't seem over the top. Tielec01 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It does seem a little over the top for something that's more or less off topic. Sure, there are valid concerns about male circumcision, but this is an article about female genital mutilation. It should be possible to discuss that subject online without it being derailed by "what about the menz?" comments every time. Maybe you could move those comments to our article on circumcision where they would actually be more relevant? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the Weasel makes a valid point. While that comment does pass the "snark" standard, it does so in a very cliché way that does a disservice to the topic at hand. I say modify it so it can be moved to the article on circumcision and kept out of the female genital mutilation article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally woudl not remove it, because it's contextual to this topic. WHO treat male and female mutilation differently - and it's worth pointing out, cause it sets up a whole list of issues about views of the body, views of circumcision, etc. I can see moving it to a foot note, but saying "a political origination in control of large sums of money, thinks that we should treat issues of cutting parts of our body off - differently if it's a girl's body or boy's body". Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The variance is rather more complicated than "differently if it's a girl's body or boy's body". I doubt that the WHO would endorse castration, for example, regardless of how effective it might be in retarding the spread of AIDS. There's certainly scope for looking at why WHO and other organisations view FGM and male circumcision differently, prioritise one issue over the other, and whether they're right to do so, but it would belong better in the circumcision article (which sort of covers both to some extent) or possibly in an article about the WHO rather than here where it looks like a bit of a tangent. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

fair enough.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity

It appears as if this is a fairly emotionally-charged topic; stepping through the diffs since it's inception, I see edits ranging from one extreme to another. Just looking to keep some objectivity, so that personal feelings won't negatively affect the quality of the article. Refugee^{talk page} 21:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so a paragraph with relevant information, well cited, is deleted due to "personal ownership" of the article. Waiting for Godot, I used to have more respect for you. You shouldn't let your personal bias interfere with the quality of the article. Also, the tone and language of your paragraph is not all that great. But so be it. Refugee^{talk page} 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure your edits are exactly objective, either, giving the way you talk about religion and a 97% rate in somalia. If you want to include these two paragraphs, probably need to find a better section - maybe the section under how prevelant it is? maybe the section under the UN? pulled the "ref" tags, just cause i'm not smart enough to know how to keep them without them causing errors. sorry. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 22:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, absolutely no personal bias on religion. I don't care, I am not religious. I just see the correlation between some religions and the oppression and mal-treatment of women. Refugee^{talk page} 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So, we are going to keep this snarky paragraph by Godot: ........."But, not so fast Before we go patting ourselves on the back about how great the Western world is, to not be doing such horrors to women, it was less than 100 years ago that doctors felt the appropriate way to cure women's "hysteria" was to give them a hysterectomy - often whether they wanted it or not. Reports are surfacing that even as far as the 1990s, it was common on Native American reservations to tie women's tubes[20], or even sometimes give them a hysterectomy to prevent the savages from breeding more savages - again, usually without their knowledge. And just 10 years ago, a judge ordered a drug addict's tubes be tied, if she wanted to be released from jail. Control over women, their bodies, and their sexuality is not something reserved for those "primitives" in some "exotic place", nor for the "foreigners" who's "religion is sickening".........

while removing this one that I added: .........However, the fact remains that FGM is more prevalent in certain parts of the world, and in societies that are dominated by certain religions. (Is that politically correct enough?) So, we see a greater than 97% FGM rate in Somalia, a Muslim-ruled society, while right next door in Kenya, a predominantly Christian society, the rate is less than 27%. ref: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/index.html Similar statistics are found that correlate religion and FGM in other countries as well. Therefore, it is not entirely possible to separate the practice of FGM from the religious norms of the community as a whole. Still, FGM is a human rights issue more than a religious issue, more specifically a women's rights issue. Even more specifically, an issue affecting children, as this procedure is most often done on girls of a young age (under 10 years old). And, without anesthesia. The World Health Organization states: "Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways... and causes immediate and long-term health consequences... babies born to women who have undergone female genital mutilation suffer a higher rate of neonatal death compared with babies born to women who have not undergone the procedure... Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. " ref: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ ......

OK then. Refugee^{talk page} 22:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No... you know what? I'm not going to accept that so easily. Go ahead and keep your paragraph detailing how one idiot judge decreed that a women had to have her tubes tied 10 years ago, and that a treatment for hysteria was surgical removal of the uterus 100 years ago, if you really think that's germane to the article on FGM, and adds important insight, fine. But I am going to re-add the paragraph about this being a Human Rights issue for women, and more specifically for children. (cited with refs). Along with the observation of how the correlation between religious norms of a society and FGM is more than casual. If you don't want it directly below yours, ok, it can go in another section. Thanks. Refugee^{talk page} 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was actually the one who SUGGESTED you do just that. sighs.... Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 23:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, so now that I DID just as you SUGGESTED, (you even "sighed" about it) and made it's own section, why have you now moved it, fragmenting the ideas and merging only select parts of it with another section, while conveniently leaving out the entire section about human rights violations and children's rights - despite the fact that World Health Organization backs me up on this, you have disappeared this part: "FGM is a human rights issue more than a religious issue, more specifically a women's rights issue. Even more specifically, an issue affecting children, as this procedure is most often done on girls of a young age (under 10 years old). And, without anesthesia." which is echoed by World Health Organization: quote: "Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. " From http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ It is ridiculous that you have such "ownership" over this article that you instantly remove entire sections that are totally relevant and accurate, yet leave in crap about one judge who declared a woman should be sterilized 10 years ago, and what the medical community did to treat hysteria 100 years ago... seriously, this is insulting and annoying, and degrades the article. Since you have to "approve" all edits and shuffle everything in this article, go ahead and have it, I don't intend to try to contribute to this page again. I am annoyed because this is an extremely important topic for women, and it could be an excellent article without you meddling and single-handedly deciding what you want to stay in it. But go ahead, it's all yours, I'm done here. sheesh. Refugee^{talk page} 06:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, another editor removed some of the less worthy stuff that was in this article. I removed the cannibalized edits (you didn't even spell Somalia correctly, and removed the percentage while continuing to compare it to Kenya's percentage) I have some good info, solid refs, and an idea on how to add it to the page to make it better, and will be doing that soon. This has the potential to be a good, informative article that dispells myths, and starts people thinking more about this important topic. Refugee^{talk page} 02:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot, you need to read this talk page before you edit the page. As I stated above, my intention is to include more material, so stop playing around with my edits. Refugee^{talk page} 06:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And to Proxima, do not re-add disputed material to the page, especially when I've clearly stated my intentions to add my original edits and the manner in which I will do this. You also re-introduced mis-spellings, as well as created new erroneous spellings and non-accurate information. Do you think you can just keep your hands out of this until it's ironed out?? Refugee^{talk page} 08:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge Request

I don't see a reason why this article can't be merged with circumcision in a page called "Genital Mutilation". The circumcision article is already about 30% female information anyway. Unless the circumcision article is suddenly expanded by 5 sections I don't really see a need to keep the two on separate pages. - Hobby (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

'Circumcision' and 'female genital mutilation' are distinct phrases and phenomena and I think it would be unwise to merge them. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

While that's true, there's no reason not to use redirect to specific areas in the article that use hese phases, such as section titles. Alternatively, merging the two will get rid of the pathetic circumcision article, which is less than 500 words long and STILL carries a female genital mutilation section. Hobby (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the circumcision article. If you think it should be longer, add to it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean aside from the fact that a segment on circumcision was removed form this page but the opposite is not true for the circumcision article? Never mind, you obviously don't get it. Anyway, I'll have a crack at it in a month or two when I've finished packing up my life. Hobby (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say they should be kept separate. I also think the the page on Circumcision says more then enough on Female genital mutilation.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 11:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fair. Mind giving me a hand on that article. I've made some edits on that page now and I'm good at writing a sentence, but page formatting isn't my strong suit. Hobby (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)